Roxanne Conlin has known the type of extreme deprivation generally reserved for a Steinbeck novel, though you wouldn't know it by her current career: extremely successful lawyer (and prosecutor) and philanthropist and political facilitator to some of the most powerful Democrats in the country.

Though she does not talk about her hard-knock background often, she has been cold because the utility company turned off the heat in her house, back when utility companies used to be able to do those types of things. She was forced to work from age 14 on, managed to get into college at 16, and graduated from law school by age 21. She had five siblings and was, in many ways, their caregiver. Her home was violent. So she is the right type to empathize with Iowans in the midst of a devastating economic crisis, when the state has seen not just economic collapse and joblessness but floods that drove businesses out of its eastern regions two years ago.

Conlin is challenging Chuck Grassley, Iowa's Republican senator, this year, and while she is by no means favored to win, she's giving Grassley the most aggressive opponent he's had in a long, long time. I spoke to Conlin this week about her race, the economy, President Obama, and -- yes -- whether she would cut farm subsidies.

MA: Why are you running? You're running to win, not to raise your profile.

RC: You bet I am. People in Iowa are hurting. They have lost jobs, they are losing their homes, and I don't think just anybody in Iowa who isn't someone or doesn't know someone who's affected by unemployment or foreclosure or something related to the economic turmoil. And Grassley has been in public office. He was first elected in 1975 -- before Alaska and Hawaii were states. And he has been here in Washington for [a long time]. I did a 99 county tour right at the very beginning of our effort, in January in Iowa.

MA: Iowans like to see their candidates.

RC: They absolutely do. And I think if you want to be the senator for Iowa, you ought to be the senator for all of Iowa, and that means you have to go and talk to the people and listen to them and learn from them. People said to me every place I went, every single county, someone would say, "I have voted for Chuck Grassley in the past but I'm not going to vote for him again. He has lost touch with Iowa." People said that to me over and over and over again. And I think that is true. That is on the ground true.

MA: What does it mean, "lost touch"?

RC: It means they watched him vote in favor of the bailout for Wall Street. There might be an issue that makes people angrier in Iowa, but if there is, I don't know what it is. And so, they got their senator voting to bail out Wall Street.

MA: But just to be fair, I mean, the senators were in a sense ambushed by an administration who told them the world is going to end if you don't do this. And if you make the counterargument to Iowans and say, 'All right, it might have been a really bad vote, but you have to at least prop up the system that allows you to make a transaction at a store.' What is the source of the anger at the bailout?

RC: It's the Wall Street bailout and I don't agree with this. At the time this was happening, I was on the telephone to Harkin making suggestions about other ways to go about this that would not be handing over taxpayer money to the people who drove the economy off the cliff. They paid themselves these outrageous bonuses -- people in Iowa don't understand that, that's not responsible, that's not what they were supposed to do. They were supposed to loosen credit -- and they didn't. And so how could you possibly do this with no strings attached and think they were going to do the right thing?

MA: And they're not blaming Democrats and Obama, necessarily, because they were in power -- they're blaming anyone who voted for it.

RC: And they're blaming everybody who voted for it. And I was incensed about it at the time. This is not a new position for me. I called both Harkin and Braley and asked that they take a look at a from-the-bottom-up solution or buying the toxic assets directly. Those were both perfectly acceptable and much more efficient solutions to the problem. And I think that Paulson, coming from Wall Street, didn't see the potential for other solutions. The toxic assets were toxic because they were made up of mortgages people couldn't pay. How about if we let them stay in their homes and provide them with a loan or some way to stay in their homes rather than throwing them out?

MA: Do you think President Obama needs a new economic team?

RC: Yes ... I do think that is true. But I am very concerned that we are losing ... well, I do not want to see us make the mistakes made during the Great Depression in 1937. And it looks so much to me like we are just beginning to climb up the hill. And instead of saying OK, how about these kind of targeted things, keep teachers? So now we're going to lay off teachers. Really? I don't think we can...

MA: You support federal government aid to the states for specific purposes.

RC: Yes. And other kinds of specific things: investment in infrastructure, investment in green energy, no subsidies to big oil. I just think there are plenty of things we can do that are quite directed and will put people back to work.

MA: Are people more worried about spending in the deficit than they are angry at TARP and the state of the economy?

RC: It's kind of hard to sort that all out. And I don't know the answer to that in Iowa. People are sort of generally downhearted which is not very like our state. We are generally pretty upbeat and optimistic and can-do people, and neighbors helping neighbors. We were just talking about this in terms of the flood. People get in their cars and drive from wherever they are to wherever they need to be to help with the sandbagging. And that's just Iowa. But right now, people are discouraged. And I just think they look at Wall Street and they look at the oil and the birds and they think, what the hell is going on? To me, both of those things are the failure of government.

MA: The government now is led by Democrats and President Obama. Assess his response to the oil spill.

RC: It's so hard to assess that because the Bush administration dismantled the government in several ways. Not just deregulation but also putting people in charge of agencies who couldn't do that job or who wouldn't do that job. There are people now; I know he's been in office for a while, but it's going to take some time to undo that ... And then of course we've got Shelby and others holding up appointments -- important presidential appointments that are necessary to put people in place to do that job. It's very frustrating to me because I believe that government has a role to play in keeping people safe, and I think the government has failed at that. But I don't think it's Obama. I think it's leftover, for the most part. I'm not among those who suggest that the president should emote. To me, that's plainly ridiculous. I wanted more last night, but apparently today while we've been in meetings, he has succeeded in getting ... do you know? Is it $20 billion?

MA: $20 billion. They're going to stop their dividend payments.

RC: That's huge to me. My big concern yesterday was they were negotiating to make that limit their liability and that would have been a disaster, because I must tell you, with 60,000 barrels of oil still spewing, I don't know ultimately what the damage could be. And one wonders how far the repercussions will reach and, you know, people in Iowa are going to be affected by this. Farmers are going to be affected by raises in gas prices and things like that. I wanted to be sure that they did not cap the liability at $20 billion because it might not be enough. In fact, if I had to guess just sitting here, I'd guess it won't be enough.

MA: It probably would be quite a bit more. Assuming you win and get to the Senate, what's the first big piece of legislation you think the Senate needs to work on in the next sessions, assuming Democrats keep control (which I think is a fair assumption at this point)?

RC: Yes, I think that would be a fair assumption, or I certainly hope it will be.

MA: So what if the Senate majority leader, whoever it might be, goes to you and says, "What's your priority"?

RC: It depends on what's happening at the time. Right now, if I were in the Senate today, my priority would be jobs and the economy. Jobs and the economy just have to be first in my opinion. There are other things that I would like to do assuming that Congress gets some of these targeted things through and there are quite a number of things that I would like to get done. I guess then I would like to see some overhaul of the tax system, some injection of fairness. I would like to see hedge fund managers taxed on their income just like the people that work for me. I would like to see stopping subsidies to big oil to the tune of $36.5 billion, redirect that to green energy and green jobs.

MA: Would you be willing to put all subsidies on the table?

RC: Sure, absolutely. And in fact, I have already publicly stated that I think that agriculture subsidies should be limited to a total of $250,000 and I would like to direct them explicitly and specifically at independent problems. And farmers who are using conservation methodologies and farmers who are growing local food for local schools, and things like that. I think that somehow that's in the 2008 farm bill. The limitation is there. But dead people are getting the subsidies.

MA: Do you anticipate getting the resources that high profile Senate candidates tend to get from their party? Or are you aware that you need to cross a certain threshold in the poll in order for ...

RC: Well, I should have crossed it by now.

MA: Well, I mean, you definitely have ...

RC: We're the closest challenger in the nation.

MA: And there's no question that people are taking notice.

RC: I am a realist. And I recognize that there are lots of endangered incumbents, and there's Barbara Boxer -- her race costs 3, 4, 5 times what mine does. And now, Patty Murray ... I'm very much a realist about that. And I don't know the answer. What I do know is that the race has attracted sufficient attention, that 527's have already been in. They're on the air -- two of them are on the air right now. And I am a truly progressive candidate. And I'm expecting that kind of assistance because I might be one of the few true progressives in this cycle who's not afraid. Fearless.

MA: Has Grassley agreed to debate yet?

RC: No, but I'm certainly hoping that he will. And we are going to accept every invitation that we get to debate.

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

No other place mixes affordability, opportunity, and wealth so well. What’s its secret?

If the American dream has not quite shattered as the Millennial generation has come of age, it has certainly scattered. Living affordably and trying to climb higher than your parents did were once considered complementary ambitions. Today, young Americans increasingly have to choose one or the other—they can either settle in affordable but stagnant metros or live in economically vibrant cities whose housing prices eat much of their paychecks unless they hit it big.

The dissolution of the American dream isn’t just a feeling; it is an empirical observation. In 2014, economists at Harvard and Berkeley published a landmark study examining which cities have the highest intergenerational mobility—that is, the best odds that a child born into a low-income household will move up into the middle class or beyond. Among large cities, the top of the list was crowded with rich coastal metropolises, including San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego, and New York City.